AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and Mr. P K Rawal, learned counsel for respondents (except respondent Nos. 2, 8 and 9) submit that they would have no objection if the impugned order dated 09.04.2025, is put in abeyance and, in the interregnum, the learned Trial Court is directed to explore the possibility of inter se bidding with respect to the property in question.
It is also apprised that there are strong chances of there being amicable settlement between the parties though fact, however, remains that some of the respondents in the present petition are yet to be served.
In view of the above, the present petition is, hereby, disposed of with the direction that the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 shall remain in abeyance and the learned Executing Court would find out, after ensuring due service of execution petition upon all the parties concerned, whether inter se bidding with respect to the property in question can take place or not.
In case, the learned Executing Court, after hearing all such parties, is of the view that it is not possible to go for inter se bidding, it would be open for the learned Trial Court to revive the abovesaid order dated 09.04.2025 for the purposes of putting the property in question to auction.
It will be also permissible for the learned Trial Court to refer the matter for mediation, in case, need so arises.
Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.